%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Optional Preface:

%\begin{preface}
% text
%\prefaceauthor{}
%\where{place\\
% date}
%\end{preface}
% ie,
% \begin{preface}
% This is an example preface.
% \prefaceauthor{R. K. Watts}
% \where{Durham, North Carolina\\
% September, 2004}

\chapter*{Preface}
%\begin{preface}
This is an interdisciplinary course drawing centrally upon  sociology, economics and, to a lesser extent, psychology and  management theory. As the title suggests D and S's book is written substantially from an economists' perspective on organizations or firms to use their favored term. B and H, on the other hand, adopt a much more psychological and sociological standpoint. I shall therefore often use phrases like sociologists suggest that \ldots or economists opine that \ldots 
 
 You might well ask why this interdisciplinary compass? For instance, many courses carry the title organisation theory (largely a sociological term) and organisation behaviour (largely a psychological term).``Organisation theory'' and ``organisation behaviour'' are more often than not taught independently of each other and both almost completely separately from theories of the firm /organisation deriving from economics. This is however, in our view, wrong. It is no longer intellectually tenable to proceed in this manner. Each discipline has its own contribution to make and one can only begin to understand the structure and functioning of organisations by incorporating insights from each. Sometimes they complement each other, sometimes they invite alternative interpretations and sometimes they are in conflict-though much less often than many suppose. Economists inevitably pay more attention to organisations with a clear economic purpose (firms) whereas the other disciplines take a wider viewpoint embracing any sort of organisation e.g. churches, temples, voluntary organisations, prisons and so on. Of course these also have their economic aspects. The central difference in emphasis is upon those organisations which are held together by monetary incentives and those that are otherwise coordinated, for example by cultural norms or power and coercion. As we shall see, however, most organisation use a mixture of mechanisms designed to hold them together. And the central concepts used in this study guide to understand the process of ``holding together'' are control and coordination. The study guide will tend to concentrate upon ``economic'' organisations though the texts both invite you to think about a more varied menu of organisations.

You will no doubt quickly notice that D and S sometimes resort to elementary mathematics in presenting their material whereas Band H rarely do so. This reflects the different traditions in the respective disciplines.  I have chosen to present mathematical ideas in a series of appendices rather than in the text. This does not, of course, mean that they are of less importance but I am aware that many students coming to organisation studies are not terribly mathematically confident.  For those of you that might so describe yourselves, I assure you that it is possible to pursue this course with a very minimum of mathematical reasoning.  The way you should treat the appendices and the mathematical sections in D and S is to note the assumptions of the mathematical models and their conclusions (you can assume the latter follow from the former). This is what you need to know to pass the examination. To this end I have, wherever possible indicated the assumptions in the Appendices. For those of you who are comfortable with mathematical reasoning then you will hopefully recognize that such reasoning is often by far the most efficient way of understanding complex arguments and enables you to pose questions like, if I changed this assumption what would happen to the conclusions. 

 You might ask why complex arguments are necessary for understanding organizations.  Sometimes when reading Band H it might appear that merely listing the factors which particular authors suggests are important is all that is needed by way of analysis. The B and H text is largely written in this style aping many courses on organization which seem to regard this as sufficient; so students merely remember who said what. This is not, however, sufficient, rather formulating  what might be termed an analytical conceptual framework is absolutely crucial,  and it rapidly transpires that  in trying to understand what makes an organization work effectively requires a detailed analysis  of how various factors combine and interact.  This is where detailed reasoning enters the picture.  You should try and acquire the skills to reason or make conjectures about how if one thing changes others will also alter. 

Band H claim that their text adopts ``a multiple stakeholder broad agenda'' view of organizational behaviour.  This study guide will attempt to follow this precept but in a particular fashion.  We shall interpret the central issue in organisation theory as one of controlling and coordinating human activity and resources with certain objectives (goals) in mind.  This then invites the question- whose objectives?  The possible answers to this question are, as we shall see, complex, but the study guide is written from the point of view of ``managers'' of those resources and activities.  However managers may well be beholden to other stake holders - e.g. shareholders (in capitalist firms), workers  (in a producer co-operative ), consumers  (in a consumer cooperative) the state (in a nationalised  firm) or even a mixture of these stakeholders. In this sense a managerial approach is not to be simply equated with a ``top down'' perspective. Furthermore imagine how different your conclusions about control and coordination might be when considering a church or mosque rather than a firm. 

As you read   the very detailed exposition, particularly in Band H, you should always keep in mind the question -how could what I am reading enable me to understand how a manager might control and coordinate her organization? It would be good if I could say to you that in combining ideas from the various social and economic sciences one could arrive at general models embracing all the various disciplinary insights. For example, we might ask what motivates people to contribute to the goals of an organisation?  However, I am afraid answering this question unequivocally is, at the moment, often beyond the compass of the combined sciences.  The question you should ask is: what factors should a good manager take into account when trying to control and coordinate resources, individuals and groups of people? How varied are they, are they consistent? Do they contradict each other? Should, in this particular context, I introduce a little more of this and less of that?  These are questions which in response rarely surrender definite optimal solutions. Rather they are addressed by judgment, but the more embracing the framework in which the judgment is made the more effective it is likely to be.                            
        


%\prefaceauthor{R. K. Watts}
%\where{Durham, North Carolina\\
%September, 2007}

%\end{preface}